i've been listening to nancy isenberg's historical biography on aaron burr (
fallen founder: the life of aaron aurr). isenberg paints a well-researched, detailed portrait of the early american (of "
got milk?" fame). among the take-aways: (1) wow, i didn't know much about the guy before, but i like him. (2) geez, politics were just as disgusting then as they are now. policy happened on a sloshing sea of nauseating vitriol, immaturity and pettiness. (3) it got me thinking about how people mostly fail to be impartial toward "the opposition" or worse, how people actively choose to believe the worst about each other... i'm surprised, but jefferson seems like a person who (at least in burr's case) allowed his beliefs to form his "truth" rather than truth informing his beliefs. i feel some long-winded abstraction coming ...
biased critique. patronization. confirmation bias.
biased critique
ever notice how people miraculously sprout "inconsistency radars" for the opposition, scanning statements for inaccuracy and general stupidity?
criticism in itself is not the problem. healthy critique is a powerful tool for growth... but why should the benefit of our
criticism fall only on those who do not share our world view? in fact, the systematic
neglect of critique and challenge is a cause of the echo chamber. we have to be comfortable with discovering truth as it exists and, so, not limit our critique.
critique should come from a place of love for truth and in a posture of humility. we recognize shortcomings in others' views, but remember that we aren't immune to failure in judgment. we should not pretend that others know nothing. one of burr's big non-negotiables was sincerity. not pretending or posturing, but being genuinely invested in
truth as well as in the good of others' generally. the idea isn't
new.
patronization (and a lack of magnanimity)
sometimes folks automatically assume that others are naive and unaware of
the implications of their worldview, or that they've arrived at these
views without thought or reflection.
that mentality causes us to imagine others as being "trapped" by their worldview... particularly when we can't figure out why they believe what they do--(i.e, "so-and-so is so smart! and likeable! how can they believe
that!?"). so we think... "well, maybe they haven't been exposed", or that maybe they have been emotionally manipulated or conned into the views
they hold.
but more often than not, there are values--even virtues---in competition which make people's understanding of their views more complicated than we'd like to think. people are not utterly devoid of conscience or good sense. (philosophical side note: human will is oriented to what the intellect presents as "good". in that way, no one "chooses" or wills what is bad without first convincing their own intellect that the goal at hand is "good". in this way, human will requires value judgment of some kind.)
there is such a thing as personal agency, human reason and judgment. so, to have a meaningful conversation about the source of another's worldview, the first step is to not be talking all the time. it is an opportunity to learn and understand,
simply for the sake of understanding--to love others well. to serve them with your views rather than berate them. listening helps us to better articulate our views, and introduce our thoughts more pragmatically to others. it may not garner agreement, but at least it will garner some semblance of understanding and minimize hostility.
confirmation bias
the combination of the above, being selectively critical and unfair in our estimation of others (or refusing to listen), leads us toward an error of
confirmation bias.
jefferson's mistrust of burr--distrust that ultimately prompted his accusation of treason--began when he absorbed alexander hamilton's caricatures of burr, who had been a rival to hamilton in state and national politics. hamilton, i think it's fair to say, had it out for burr (politically speaking). burr's reputation was smeared because of hamilton's gossip, but everyone who worked directly with burr knew otherwise. when the time came, it was easy for jefferson to trust general james wilkinson's unsubstantiated accusations, because he was primed to believe what was consistent with his previously formed biases. (as it turns out, wilkinson forged evidence in the treason case against aaron burr. awkward.)
nothing is special about jefferson's haste to malign burr and believe the worst about him. in fact, i think we're all prone to do the same without patient attention to our own biases.
blah, blah. but, anyways... i'm halfway through this biography, and isenberg has made me a believer---burr is not the villain historical memory has made him out to be.
side note: burr was a slave holder. :( i don't think he was a white supremacist. (thomas jefferson may have been... read his personal writings
here). still, owning people is not cool.
another one: burr was the son of esther edwards-burr. esther died when aaron was two. she also happened to be the daughter of famous presbyterian minister, jonathan edwards.
by the by...when she was a nine year old in 1743, she wrote in her journal about slavery: "that word “own” sounds strangely about people." at least somebody got it. right on, esther.
